engineering at UoM

[nonstop9328]

is engineering in UoM that bad compare to Monash and RMIT?
i'm planning to do bachelor of environments + Master of environmental engineering

[Chavi]

I heard that Monash is best when it comes to engineering, but I've also heard distasteful things about Monash as well.
Melbourne favours academic quality, breadth and depth.
Monash is all quantity over quality - and heaps on international students to boot - but they do have the Synchrotron.

Have no idea about RMIT, but you're best bet is to try and get into MIT/

[crappy]

I've also heard distasteful things about Monash as well.

like what?


Im not being a dick, I really want to know lol

[Chavi]

I've also heard distasteful things about Monash as well.

like what?


Im not being a dick, I really want to know lol

That the value of a Monash degree is declining steadily because of poor student performance and low expectations from employers; large number of international students with poor english skills; rigid and narrow curriculums VS the Melbourne model that allegedly encourages Academic rigor for its own quaint sake - makes it more appealing to prospective employers.

[zhenzhenzhen]

I heard that Monash is best when it comes to engineering, but I've also heard distasteful things about Monash as well.
Melbourne favours academic quality, breadth and depth.
Monash is all quantity over quality - and heaps on international students to boot - but they do have the Synchrotron.

Have no idea about RMIT, but you're best bet is to try and get into MIT/

need sources else what you're saying have completely no basis in fact

[Chavi]

I heard that Monash is best when it comes to engineering, but I've also heard distasteful things about Monash as well.
Melbourne favours academic quality, breadth and depth.
Monash is all quantity over quality - and heaps on international students to boot - but they do have the Synchrotron.

Have no idea about RMIT, but you're best bet is to try and get into MIT/

need sources else what you're saying have completely no basis in fact

hence the term hearsay

[zhenzhenzhen]

i.e. libel?

Anyway, OP, where did you hear that Melbourne's engineering is bad at all?

All unis in the Go8 are fine universities; employers will not really differentiate between one or the other.

[Chavi]

i.e. libel?

no, i plan to study @monash. For this reason I try to talk to as many graduates as possible - so I get the good and the bad

[rustic_metal]

It's not bad at all. I do engineering at Melbourne and I can tell you that engineering is taught extremely well compared to other subjects I've done, particularly physics.

PROS:

- The subjects are very rigidly structured and covered thoroughly, leaving no room for the "did we even learn that?" type stuff you experience in high school and, in my experience, physics. This also helps for revising as you can learn things in chunks and not have to worry about half-developed understandings for a few lectures.
- Electrical engineering is taught particularly well.
- The engineering labs are class.
- ESD1 (the first engineering subject - sem1 year1) is nigh on useless. This sounds like a con, but it's actually a pro because it isn't a prerequisite so you can just skip it.
- Even though the whole prestige thing isn't as relevant to our generation, people in high positions at big companies are often fairly old and many still hold Melbourne in much higher regard despite their company's position (as I heard when talking to somebody right near the top of one of the major engineering firms in aus: "it's always good to get a Melbourne student; you know they're going to be gung-ho.")
- You get to take 4-6 of your subjects from another faculty (environments engies are in the interesting position of being able to take some subjects similar to engineering as breadth, I believe).
- You learn an extra year's worth of stuff at a level higher than standard 4th year (...5th year, surprise surprise).

CONS:

- You have to take 4-6 of your subjects from another faculty. Most people I know love breadth, but it seems like a waste of time until you get to uni and realise they've crammed all the necessary stuff for you to learn into a few subjects (beginners electrical, mechanical and software engineering all in one subject; 2nd year electrical engineering in one subject; 2nd year mechanical engineering in one subject; etc) and you have fark all else you need to do. That and it lightens your workload considerably (or increases it if you pick a particularly hard breadth, but that's all your choice).
- It takes an extra year.
- You have to get into masters (65% average over your major subjects).
- You have to take first year physics (terrible subjects, but you can drop it after first year).
- ESD2 (the second eng subject you take) is apparently really hard. I didn't mind it, but there was a 34% fail rate this year.

Not that I put a massive amount of emphasis on rankings, but since Melbourne is ranked much higher than Monash and RMIT in all of them, what would prompt you to think Melbourne is worse? It's really hard to compare universities unless you attend both of them, so most of the whinging about Melbourne by non-Melbourne students is along the lines of "Bawww Melbourne Model" with a healthy dose of Change Is Bad. As for RMIT...I have a mate who transferred from Melbourne engineering to RMIT engineering. He says the standard is much higher at Melbourne, but he never got any work done here because he was always out drinking.

Re Synchrotron: ...I have no idea how having one of those would benefit me. lol

[Kopite]

is engineering in UoM that bad compare to Monash and RMIT?
i'm planning to do bachelor of environments + Master of environmental engineering

You've probably heard that Monash is a lot more practical than UoM. Like rustic said, I'm curious as to how often engineering students would utilize the wind tunnel/synchrotron, and whether it is really does enrich the learning experience.

I did 20 experiments within my COMMERCE degree during a three year duration. A third year Monash civil engineering student was suprised as to how much practical stuff I had done.

[rustic_metal]

I wonder how much truth there is to that, too. All the eng subjects at Melbourne have 3 hour pracs every week with robotics, bread boards, fluids, etc depending on the subject's focus, not to mention subjects like ESI, which are entirely practical eng subjects. Monash mustn't have any lectures if they're doing more labs than that!

[QuantumJG]

It's not bad at all. I do engineering at Melbourne and I can tell you that engineering is taught extremely well compared to other subjects I've done, particularly physics.

PROS:

- The subjects are very rigidly structured and covered thoroughly, leaving no room for the "did we even learn that?" type stuff you experience in high school and, in my experience, physics. This also helps for revising as you can learn things in chunks and not have to worry about half-developed understandings for a few lectures.
- Electrical engineering is taught particularly well.
- The engineering labs are class.
- ESD1 (the first engineering subject - sem1 year1) is nigh on useless. This sounds like a con, but it's actually a pro because it isn't a prerequisite so you can just skip it.
- Even though the whole prestige thing isn't as relevant to our generation, people in high positions at big companies are often fairly old and many still hold Melbourne in much higher regard despite their company's position (as I heard when talking to somebody right near the top of one of the major engineering firms in aus: "it's always good to get a Melbourne student; you know they're going to be gung-ho.")
- You get to take 4-6 of your subjects from another faculty (environments engies are in the interesting position of being able to take some subjects similar to engineering as breadth, I believe).
- You learn an extra year's worth of stuff at a level higher than standard 4th year (...5th year, surprise surprise).

CONS:

- You have to take 4-6 of your subjects from another faculty. Most people I know love breadth, but it seems like a waste of time until you get to uni and realise they've crammed all the necessary stuff for you to learn into a few subjects (beginners electrical, mechanical and software engineering all in one subject; 2nd year electrical engineering in one subject; 2nd year mechanical engineering in one subject; etc) and you have fark all else you need to do. That and it lightens your workload considerably (or increases it if you pick a particularly hard breadth, but that's all your choice).
- It takes an extra year.
- You have to get into masters (65% average over your major subjects).
- You have to take first year physics (terrible subjects, but you can drop it after first year).
- ESD2 (the second eng subject you take) is apparently really hard. I didn't mind it, but there was a 34% fail rate this year.

Not that I put a massive amount of emphasis on rankings, but since Melbourne is ranked much higher than Monash and RMIT in all of them, what would prompt you to think Melbourne is worse? It's really hard to compare universities unless you attend both of them, so most of the whinging about Melbourne by non-Melbourne students is along the lines of "Bawww Melbourne Model" with a healthy dose of Change Is Bad. As for RMIT...I have a mate who transferred from Melbourne engineering to RMIT engineering. He says the standard is much higher at Melbourne, but he never got any work done here because he was always out drinking.

Re Synchrotron: ...I have no idea how having one of those would benefit me. lol

- ESD 1 was one of the most f*%#ed up subjects I've done. I hated that subject so much.

- Lol at the second part I bolded.

- ESD 2 was MUCH better than ESD 1, having said that, they must get rid of the programming lecturer and then the failure rate should drop.

I still speak to some of the friends I made whilst doing ESD 1/2 and they said second year engineering was MUCH better than first year and that I should have hung in there. My problem was that I loved physics and Maths and was considering engineering. Melbourne really should make first year experience with engineering more appealing.

I agree that physics has some horrible lecturers (I'm in a dilemma of going into mathematical physics - basically your an applied mathematician who looks at physics), but Nicole Bell was a great lecturer and she does pretty much most of the lectures for masters level subjects for theoretical particle physics.

[rustic_metal]

- ESD 1 was one of the most f*%#ed up subjects I've done. I hated that subject so much.

- Lol at the second part I bolded.

- ESD 2 was MUCH better than ESD 1, having said that, they must get rid of the programming lecturer and then the failure rate should drop.

I still speak to some of the friends I made whilst doing ESD 1/2 and they said second year engineering was MUCH better than first year and that I should have hung in there. My problem was that I loved physics and Maths and was considering engineering. Melbourne really should make first year experience with engineering more appealing.

I agree that physics has some horrible lecturers (I'm in a dilemma of going into mathematical physics - basically your an applied mathematician who looks at physics), but Nicole Bell was a great lecturer and she does pretty much most of the lectures for masters level subjects for theoretical particle physics.

Didn't like ESD2? I thought the workshops were great, but the lectures were a joke. Such easy subject matter than they really had nothing to do but bore you for 3 hours a week. When I did eng, physics and jap I learnt just about everything in workshops/pracs/seminars and just had a look through the notes when I wanted to learn something, anyway.

Yeah I've heard the programming guy was a bit of a mook, but I only went to two ESD2 lectures all semester, so I wouldn't really know. My ears were in agony after listening to that Asian guy who took the electrical component (at least I *think* he took that one); his mnemonics were absolutely ridiculous. Calling variables 'Collingwood,' 'Pavlova,' 'Andrew' and '♥,' seriously?

I can't speak for higher level physics, of course. A few of my mates have finished or are polishing off their physics bachelors/masters, so it seems like it must be good once you get to that stage. It must just be physics 2 and electromag that are the killers.

[crappy]

is engineering in UoM that bad compare to Monash and RMIT?
i'm planning to do bachelor of environments + Master of environmental engineering

You've probably heard that Monash is a lot more practical than UoM. Like rustic said, I'm curious as to how often engineering students would utilize the wind tunnel/synchrotron, and whether it is really does enrich the learning experience.

I did 20 experiments within my COMMERCE degree during a three year duration. A third year Monash civil engineering student was suprised as to how much practical stuff I had done.

Practical in the sense that monash makes every engineering student complete 12 weeks of vacation work at an engineering firm. Don't think melbourne does this.

Don't be fooled by the bullshit title, "master of .... engineering', it's only just a name. You'll still have the same qualifications as someone that completed a bach of engineering at monash (in less time too)

[rustic_metal]

is engineering in UoM that bad compare to Monash and RMIT?
i'm planning to do bachelor of environments + Master of environmental engineering

You've probably heard that Monash is a lot more practical than UoM. Like rustic said, I'm curious as to how often engineering students would utilize the wind tunnel/synchrotron, and whether it is really does enrich the learning experience.

I did 20 experiments within my COMMERCE degree during a three year duration. A third year Monash civil engineering student was suprised as to how much practical stuff I had done.

Practical in the sense that monash makes every engineering student complete 12 weeks of vacation work at an engineering firm. Don't think melbourne does this.

Don't be fooled by the bullshit title, "master of .... engineering', it's only just a name. You'll still have the same qualifications as someone that completed a bach of engineering at monash (in less time too)

You do an extra year of engineering. As in an extra year's worth of work at a higher level. It's only the same level of 'qualification' because IEAust qualification for engineers is only "yes, you're qualified" or "no you're not qualified."

And anybody can do vacation work at a firm if they want to.